Did anon just mentally blank out every homeless person, cyber psycho victim, crime victim, police victim, corp victim?
Anon would sign an Arasaka human testing contract without reading it
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
28 points (96.7% liked)
> Greentext
7440 readers
138 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Damn this dude played Cyberpunk and literally missed everything about the story and the city itself.
Sounds "corporations are le bad" with more words
Corporations ARE le bad though
They are though.
A problem the entire cyberpunk genre has
Absolutely, most of the Cyberpunk genre is meant to entertain. The dystopian setting is used as a foil to a hyper-individualistic power-trip main character fantasy.
Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's good to be aware of. You don't want to live in night city, you want to be the invincible god-like merc that lives in night city. You don't want to live in the matrix, you want to be the bullet time kung fu Neo.
It's for fun, it's a fantasy.
I love the Cyberpunk 2077 universe. Ive played the TTRPG, the Game from CD Project Red, and loved the anime. But no way in hell would I want to actually live in Night City...
Cyberpunk 2077, the video game, is a great story partially because Night City is practically more a character than a setting. It consumes and shits out all who are bold or stupid enough to think they can make it there.
The person romanticizing their world has somehow missed every theme of the story. Immortality is only achievable by sacrificing every last bit of your humanity through either replacing every part of your body with chrome (Smasher), or through horrific body snatching tech (Soulkiller).
Illness does exist in Cyberpunk, many characters through the story refer to their sick relatives. V themself is portrayed as being sick after installing Soulkiller after the Arasaka heist with Jackie. Indeed, Soulkiller is portrayed like a high tech, fast acting cancer.
The world in Cyberpunk reflects a kind of criticism of capitalism in showing us how excessive the divides in economic and power dynamics can become if capitalism is left to rule unchecked by governmental power (i have not yet played phantom liberty, which I assume addresses in part the corrupted and futile attempts to restore governmental agency in a world that long has handed off the reigns to unfettered capitalists).
The characters generally live in squalor. Vs initial apartment is little more than a glorified closet in a bleak concrete monolith. Quality Health care is only available to those that can afford an ultra Premium plan, executed by a Military Style Medical Corporation. Otherwise, you're lucky if your loved ones' ashes are dispensed via a Vending Machine, as seen in the anime Edgerunners.
Again, love the game, love the anime and TTRPG. NEVER in a million years would I want to live in that universe... unless maybe it was a choice between there and literal Hell, cuz at that point the line of difference befween them starts to blur...and they end up looking the same.
Exactly, what's so grueling about the CP universe is that they have the tech and means of creating a utopia, but due to the extreme capitalism, corruption and overwhelming power of corporations nothing gets better. It's like everyone who cares just gave up on fixing that society and everyone is just fending for themselves.
expired
How do you know most of this isn't true just out of scope of Vs vision he is pretty laser focused on the brain cancer quickly replacing his personality and multiple threads of his own drama enough so he's not as interested in larger social issues.
another case where the pictured OP should be reminded sci fi is more about the present than the future
everything depicted in CP77, except the technology, is a comment on any given metropolis post-1979 than it is a fantasy with no correlation to the modern era
There's actually a few games with great settings like this. Night City is, in some ways, like Rapture from Bioshock: a city both terrible in its capacity to inflict violence on the unprepared and which horribly reshapes the individuals who inhabit it, either technologically or biologically, while being vibrant and interesting in a way cities in our world aren't. It's sort of the innate aesthetic of cyberpunk or, in Bioshock's case, biopunk: "terrible, but interesting."
V's apartment isn't actually that bad though is the funny thing. That's like 4k a month in San Francisco.
Yes, but is it inside a Brutalist monolith concrete building with a single small slit of a window? I get what you're saying, but my point in regards to Vs initial apartment is that despite it's small niceties, the harshness of the world that exists just right outside their door is mlre prison like than almost all modern 1st world apartments today.
I love the gig where you have to comfort and console your neighbor, Barry, because you get to see that his apartment is slightly smaller, slightly lower scale than yours, but more or less the same.
A similar portrayal can be seen in the apartment of K in Blade Runner 2049. Sure the interiors are nicer than some, but the apartments, to me, feel like the architects intended to treat the tenants like prisoners with nicer digs than actual prisoners. Space efficient to the point of just barely not cramped. Nice enough that initially you don't complain. Isolated enough that you don't connect with your neighbors.
Grant you there are community spaces like the boxing gym, but again, it reminds me of a prison gym mainly because of the Brutalist concrete foundation of the building.
Youtuber Dami Lee does a much better job breaking down Cyberpunk style architecture than I ever could. Id highly recommend you check out her video on the subject.
anon chooses photo of someone who literally got crushed to death by a terminator in a gunfight
utopia
Illness, no such thing
So the guy just isn't familiar with the property then, gotcha
Making money and a decent quality of life through extremely illegal activities? Apart from the respawn, it's exactly how it works in real life too.
See the difference is that morality has almost completely broken down in CP2077. What did V have to do between the prolog and tutorial to get a nice apartment and a reliable car? Those assholes at the meat packing plant where you get the robot sure don't look like they have any qualms even if V does.
Also, we still have an ecosystem and efficient oceanic transport. Climate change and a rogue AI that controls a global oceanic swarm of self replicating sea mines mean that the pizza is gross because pigs are extinct (they use tuna) and all overseas cargo is transported by air.
People still care about their friends, but that's it. Even if internet in CP2077 was global and filled with punks and not just a NetWatch-policed glorified municipal Teletext, do you think anyone would give a shit about the world they live in on a chat site?
It's also heavily implied that successful cyberpunks are vastly outnumbered by idiots who were in over their heads from the start and it cost those amateurs their lives. Those that succeed and become even slightly known, including V, are often exceptionally skilled individuals.
"Explain to me how night City isnt a utopia" "right to bear arms? Yep"
Sounds like he explained one big reason himself.
For some people the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing not a bad thing.
I think the bigger problem is not that armed people are everywhere, but that violent crime is common...
Right to self defense and reasonable means to do so is a fair enough.
The problem is that currently people think the explodey instant death pointers are somehow a defensive tool instead of just adding more offense to the problem.
Want to feel secure in your home? Invest in something actually useful like durable doors and windows, difficult to pick locks, if law enforcement is outside a safe response time range, a panic room is probably a good idea. All of those are infinitely more helpful against the one in a million shot of a home intruder event happening to you than all but handing said intruder the weapon they will soon kill you with.
And that's not exaggerating, women who purchase arms for defense against stalkers and/or abusers are more likely to be specifically killed with that weapon they bought for their own defense than they are to successfully defend themselves with it.
Also, most of these home intruder fantasizers have all the sense of avoiding escalation in a conflict of a fucking nuclear powered rocket breaking the carmen line speed record.
While I recognize your good faith argument, I don't believe it fits with the reality of how criminals operate, or the practicality of what most people can afford.
You can turn your house into a prison/fortress, which is expensive and only protects you when you're inside with everything locked up. Panic rooms are expensive as fuck, if you weren't aware.
And the odds of self-defense are MUCH better than you think. It's not a 'one in a million' shot that your gun helps you- in 90+% of defensive gun uses, the criminal sees the gun and runs away because he's not there to fight to the death, he's there to steal things he can get somewhere else from someone else without risk to his life. He wants a helpless victim, not a fight.
Click this reddit link- it goes to reddit's /r/ccw (concealed carry weapon) but filtered to show only stories of when /r/CCW members had to use their guns in self-defense.
Please just go read some of those stories and rethink your 'one in a million shot' position.
Nice selection bias, as if the many more people it turns out catastrophically for are able to speak their opinions on the matter in contrast.
"Fuck what this guy said goes directly against my worldview... maybe there's nuance to this very layered conundrum?"
...
"Nah, double down"
Ah yes, pointing out that the denizens of the building jumper survivor's club might have a skewed view of the survival rate of jumping off buildings. What a double down and rejection of nuance.
The statistics take murders into account, you know.
Violent crimes are common because armed people are everywhere.
Um, please think this through. You're basically saying that weapons cause violence.
But that's not how human nature works. Some PEOPLE are violent, and they commit acts of violence whether they have weapons or not.
I could approach you on the street and beat you up- that's a violent crime. No guns involved.
I could approach you on the street and stab you or hit you with a baseball bat- that's a violent crime. No guns involved.
Guns don't cause violence. Weapons don't cause violence. Weapons in the wrong hands can make violence worse, or in the right hands can prevent violence or stop it.
If I want to punch you in the face I think twice because I can't kill you from distance with a single blow, but having access to a gun is lowering the hurdle
And you're missing the most important part of the point here. WOULD you?
Whether you can kill me from a distance or from up close, WOULD you do so? I wouldn't. Most people wouldn't.
There's a few who would. And a few of them think it's fun.
You say you can't kill me from a distance. I think you can, even without a gun. Consider this a thought experiment. You need to kill me from say 100' away. You don't get a gun. How do you do it?
As an European, we have culture, we know about (cross)bows and spears and whatnot. The world is not black and white, its not about some people that always would and some people that always would not. Different environments will bring different behavior in different people. An environment where everyone has access to a firearm will lower the hurdle for extremely violent crimes that can easily result in death.
Please, have a "thought experiment" yourself and think this whole thing through, at least once. Its kindoff unfair debating with someone that went through an american school system, I know you don't have the mental capacity for this conversation, but for the sake of inclusion, we are still having it.
I think you do me an injustice, and needlessly so.
The US is not 'just one country' with the same ideals and attitudes everywhere. We are 50 states, and while there is an overall American culture, each state or even city area has its own local culture, ideals, politics, etc.
I live in a 'blue state' (IE Democrat-majority, Democrats are generally an anti-gun party). There's not a big gun culture here. There are not people with 10 gallon hats and a 6-shooter on their hip riding around in a giant pickup truck with a gun rack. My state has more gun control laws than most in the union.
When I grew up we had no guns or interest in guns. During my whole childhood the only exposure to guns I had was once at summer camp there was an activity shooting .22LR rifles (small caliber), lying down, at targets. And once on vacation we went to a shooting range that was part of a resort.
If we'd had this conversation 10 or 12 years ago, I'd have been mostly on your side. I recognized the 2nd Amendment was a thing that existed, but I saw no reason anybody needed an 'assault rifle', I thought gun free zones were a pretty good way to improve safety, and overall a lot of 'gun culture' seemed like needless penis extension.
It was actually one conversation that kicked off a change in my position. An old friend of mine and I were getting lunch together. This guy has always been very Republican (pro-gun/conservative party), owns several guns, goes hunting, etc- but we have a lot of mutual respect despite differing worldviews on many subjects. Anyway, as we finished lunch he mentions that he's going to buy an AR-15 rifle and would I like to come along? I made a dumb joke like 'damn man, I didn't realize it was that small, I'm sorry dude'. He just laughed and said 'You know my deer hunting rifle, the one you said you have no problem with civilians owning? Well it's actually a lot MORE powerful than an AR-15.' I started to argue but he said 'look, nothing I say is going to convince you. So just Google it when you get home, okay?'.
I KNEW he was wrong- a 'military weapon of war' would definitely be more powerful than a stupid wood stock hunting rifle like Elmer Fudd would carry. Surely the military wouldn't be carrying weapons inferior to those of random civilian hunters, right?
So I went home and Googled it. And I found he was right- his .30-06 hunting rifle has SIGNIFICANTLY more muzzle energy than the .223 AR-15 he was planning to buy. The hunting rifle was larger and heavier and in almost every way, more powerful.
I'm usually not wrong about technical things. So I was curious what else I was wrong about on the subject, turned out it was a lot. Not about policy or position, but about provable technical things of how guns work and how deadly they are and whatnot.
So I decided the best course of action was to basically forget everything I thought I knew, and start fresh. That kicked off a good 3-4 week deep dive on the subject, reading articles, watching YouTubes, doing research on both sides of the issue.
This brought about a few basic conclusions. The biggest is that most of the politicians who talk about guns appear to know little or nothing about guns, as many of their gun control arguments are easily disproved on basis of fact. And many of the laws they promote do nothing to regulate the actual lethality of guns, but rather try to describe 'scary looking guns' and ban those. For example, my own state's laws regulate rifles that have ergonomic features like a pistol grip or collapsible stock that have NO bearing on the rifle's lethality.
I then started doing research into use of force, defensive situations, etc. And that brought a very sobering realization- I lived in a bubble. Violence is not a part of my life (and I prefer it that way). My area is quite safe. But that doesn't mean I am immune to violent people- and there ARE people out there who ARE violent. Not many near me, but they exist.
And I'd say I've done more research than most into what happens in a fight. I've seen a lot of videos of defensive situations- robberies, fistfights, assaults, kidnapping, and straight up attempted murder. I've seen what happens when people get shot (you won't find it on YouTube). And I've seen how easy it is to seriously harm a human. We live safe lives in civilized society, but on the scale of the world, our bodies are pretty fragile and it doesn't take much to seriously damage them.
And that's why I say thought experiment for how to kill someone from 100' away. It's why I say that if someone wants to kill people, they will, gun or not. It's why I reject the logic that removing guns will save lives, because I recognize that gun regulations affect the law-abiding more than the criminals who are doing the most harm.
Point is-- I have done the thought experiment, a few different ways.
Do I want guns in vending machines? No. Is the absolute ideal to have everybody armed? No, the ideal is where nobody needs to be armed. But absent that perfect future, I think civilian armament as a deterrence to criminals works.